## Facts

- Ms. Connor, a head teacher employed by Surrey County Council, alleged she suffered stress-related illness due to conflicts with the school governors.
- She claimed that the Council failed in its duty to intervene and manage the situation, leading to her psychiatric injury.
- The initial trial found in favour of Ms. Connor.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the initial decision, ruling in favour of Surrey County Council.

## Issues

1. Whether the employer’s duty of care under common law and statutory obligations extended to preventing psychiatric harm arising from workplace stress.
2. Whether the psychiatric harm alleged by Ms. Connor was reasonably foreseeable by the employer.
3. Whether Surrey County Council breached its duty of care by failing to take reasonably practicable steps to prevent Ms. Connor’s injury.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the threshold for foreseeability of psychiatric harm must be sufficiently high; the employer is not an insurer of mental well-being.
- The Court found that, although the situation was stressful, Surrey County Council could not have reasonably foreseen the specific psychiatric harm suffered.
- The statutory duties of the Council regarding education and school governance did not automatically create a parallel common law duty of care towards employees regarding stress.
- The Court determined that, even if a risk was foreseeable, only reasonably practicable steps were required to mitigate it, which had to be proportionate and feasible given the circumstances.
- The initial finding in favour of Ms. Connor was overturned.

## Legal Principles

- Foreseeability of harm is essential in establishing an employer’s liability for stress-related mental injury; mere possibility is insufficient.
- Statutory obligations do not automatically translate into a common law duty of care owed to protect individual employees from stress.
- The employer’s conduct is to be judged by the standard of the reasonable employer in similar circumstances.
- Employers are only required to take preventative measures that are reasonably practicable and proportionate to the identified risk.
- The case reinforces that the duty to safeguard employee mental health is not absolute, focusing on reasonable foresight and practical preventative steps.

## Conclusion

The decision in Connor v Surrey County Council clarified that employers are not strictly liable for psychiatric injury from workplace stress; liability arises only when such harm is reasonably foreseeable, and even then, the duty is to take steps that are reasonable and practicable in the circumstances. Statutory duties do not automatically equate to a common law duty of care for stress-related illness.


Connor v Surrey County Council [2010] EWCA Civ 286